Walmart Lot on the Agenda for Tuesday's Special City Council Meeting

The council meets in closed session at 6:30 p.m.

A possible lawsuit and the Walmart lot are topics scheduled for discussion at a special closed session Hercules City Council meeting Tuesday, Jan. 30.

There are only two items on the agenda. No other details on the anticipated litigation item are available.

The second item has to do with negotiations on the city-owned Parcel C, or “Walmart lot.” 

The meeting is scheduled at 6:30 p.m. at .

*Correction--When first published, this article said the council would discuss the future site for Safeway. It will not.

Dwayne Hoover February 01, 2012 at 03:48 AM
A short comment from the Sacramento Bee: "The Sacramento Bee said of the act: A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.[3] [edit]"
Susan D.Keeffe February 01, 2012 at 04:58 AM
Phil, Great articles! We are on the same page after all. Now I need a single word that describes an open process visible to the public so the term " transparent" can be laid to rest I'm tired of it too!
Glenn Abraham February 01, 2012 at 05:09 AM
Re Phil's quote from the Bee: this quote, and its concept, should be put on the agenda, for the council to discuss, publicly, seriously. At the next REAL council meeting, the PUBLIC meeting, on Valentine's Day. Not at the kind of secret meeting they snuck off to last night.
Dwayne Hoover February 01, 2012 at 05:10 AM
It's about the spirit of the law. What they "may" do verses "must" do. What the are "allowed" verses what is "required" It is not that difficult. The intent of the Act is to force open meeting, not too require closed ones.
Glenn Abraham February 01, 2012 at 05:21 AM
The issue shouldn't be whether the council has a legal right to conduct the people's business in secret. That, it always seemed to me, was Mick Cabral's conception of the law and the role of the lawyer, which is to get away with the maximum possible, using tortured interpretations of language and total disregard for legislative intent. I'm pretty sure Patrick Tang is different, and does not see the law an an instrument for WITHHOLDING the maximum from the community (in order to give the council the maximum of what THEY want), but rather as an instrument to GIVE to the community. I would be very much interested in Patrick's argument for the necessity of last night's meeting to have been held in secret.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »